OF ALL THE MIRACLE/SKYDADDY BELIEVING, FILTHY, WHORE-LIKE INDIVIDUALS ON THIS WEBSITE SON.

STAND UP AND NAME YOURSELVES YOU FILTHBAGS.


ALSO, PLEASE PRESENT THE BEST ARGUMENT YOU HAVE FOR YOUR BULLSHIT BELIEFS. THIS IS CRITICAL. I AM TRYING VERY HARD TO OBTAIN AN ARGUMENT THAT EVEN REMOTELY STANDS UP TO SCRUTINY. NOBODY IS ABLE TO PROVIDE ME WITH ONE THOUGH, WHICH IS HIGHLY DISAPPOINTING.

5/3/2010 8:00:39 AM

Damn, son. You done made another one of these threads, son.

5/3/2010 8:01:44 AM

I think its a miracle that people believe in such bullshit.

I wouldn't want all you dumbasses believing the same shit i do, and trying to talk to me about it.

I'm AstralAdvent and i approved this message

5/3/2010 8:01:57 AM

^What does that mean?

^^ I have NEVER made a thread asking this that I can recall. If you can recall, PLEASE link me to it son.

5/3/2010 8:02:22 AM

o hai

i am rite u r rong

5/3/2010 8:03:31 AM

I AM WONG, YOU ARE NOT WONG.

(Also, please provide arguments sons. This is srs sons. If you have some kind of skydaddy, tell me how you've obtained knowledge of this skyson)

5/3/2010 8:03:53 AM

Quote :

"I have NEVER made a thread asking this that I can recall."

No, but they've been done to death. I didn't say you were beating your own dead horse.

5/3/2010 8:04:37 AM

wong tong kitty!

5/3/2010 8:04:52 AM

I'm just glad other people believe in like certain myths/stories [because most of them don't even really understand anything about the their beliefs history for that matter.] Because i hate talking to people who are misinformed about THEIR beliefs.


I'm AstralAdvent and i approved this message

5/3/2010 8:05:04 AM

^^^ LINK PLS. IF YOU HAVE AN ARGUMENT, PRESENT IT FOOL.

^^ OUT OF CONTROL GIBBON.

5/3/2010 8:05:07 AM

Quote :

"LINK PLS"

Which internet message board would you like me to link you to? All of them, or only most of them?

5/3/2010 8:06:23 AM

get that weak shit out of here.

all threads on all topics have been made before in some form.

I'm AstralAdvent and i approved this message

[Edited on May 3, 2010 at 8:07 AM. Reason : fuck off]

5/3/2010 8:06:49 AM

^^ OH, SO NOW YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT THE INTERNET IN ITS ENTIRETY.

I'M WAITING FOR YOUR ARGUMENT IN SUPPORT OF SKYDADDY NON-MISTER BONERSLUT.

5/3/2010 8:07:11 AM

fuck it

I'm AstralAdvent and i approved this message

[Edited on May 3, 2010 at 8:15 AM. Reason : ]

5/3/2010 8:14:45 AM

^^What? I don't care about God whether he exists or not, and I'm content to think he doesn't.

My point is that you're just re-hashing the same argument that has played out way too many goddamned times before that it becomes utterly annoying and completely pointless, since it never ends up changing anyone's mind and it likely is never going to.

I'm not going to find a link because I'm lazy and you could easily find it on your own. Virtually EVERY thread about Christianity or religion or atheism, particularly in Lounge and TSB, eventually becomes a questioning assault against one side or the other, and then inevitably turns into Christians trying to justify their system of beliefs.


Needless to say, they basically cannot justify believing in something with no evidence or proof beyond simple answers such as "it feels right" or trying to use "creation" as evidence itself. You're right about it, and you know it, and deep down, they might know it too, so why not just accept that and move on? It's easier, and far less annoying. I know you might feel the need to right the world by converting the believers, but like I said before, no one's mind ever gets changed by this sort of shit.

[Edited on May 3, 2010 at 8:17 AM. Reason : .]

5/3/2010 8:15:56 AM

Get the fuck out of here if you have no argument.

I'm looking for new ones, asshole.

5/3/2010 8:17:48 AM

There is no meaning in any object or situation.

I'm AstralAdvent and i approved this message

5/3/2010 8:20:11 AM

Sure there is, but the only meaning it has is the meaning you give it son.

If there is no mind to give something meaning, then there is no meaning son.

Obviously meaning, intent, purpose, etc are not inherent properties of this reality.

5/3/2010 8:21:40 AM

There are no new arguments.

This subject has been beaten to death by theologists, religious and historical scholars, Dawkins, random internet users... basically fucking everyone with even a mild interest in philosophy or theology or logic and even a bunch of people who are detached from all those things.

You are correct, and you will continue to be correct, regardless of how many people come in here with some load of apologetics that they might have learned when they actually drug themselves into attending church one morning. It won't be new, either way. The only remotely different thing you're likely to get is people who attest to a more individual or vague spirituality, which, as I said, likely has no more justification beyond "it feels right".

You will find no new arguments. There is nothing to discuss on this subject that has not been discussed before. This discussion serves no purpose whatsoever.

^...Well, unless you're going to discuss the broader concept of meaning. That sort of thing is actually interesting and hasn't been touched on by everyone ever.

[Edited on May 3, 2010 at 8:25 AM. Reason : ^]

5/3/2010 8:23:44 AM

Sure it does, now fuck off.

I'm waiting for the arguments to be presented by people WHO BELIEVE IN THE SKYDADDY YOU DUMB BITCH.

5/3/2010 8:24:49 AM

The truth is that nothing existed before i was born

I'm AstralAdvent and i approved this message

5/3/2010 8:27:12 AM

Again, taking all arguments for the existence of a skydaddy son.

5/3/2010 9:10:14 AM

can you prove he doesnt exist?

5/3/2010 2:39:55 PM

Yes... --> Paris Hilton.

5/3/2010 3:15:41 PM

TWW INQUISITION ITT

5/3/2010 3:17:36 PM

Think about what you said about meaning son, in the context of Descartes' ontological argument for the existence of God, son:

Quote :

"If the mere fact that I can produce from my thought the idea of something that entails everything which I clearly and distinctly perceive to belong to that thing really does belong to it, is not this a possible basis for another argument to prove the existence of God? Certainly, the idea of God, or a supremely perfect being, is one that I find within me just as surely as the idea of any shape or number. And my understanding that it belongs to his nature that he always exists is no less clear and distinct than is the case when I prove of any shape or number that some property belongs to its nature"

If we can conceive of something having a certain meaning, then that meaning does, in fact, exist. The problem, though, would lie in the fact that if God was only put into existence by the human mind, then it would be impossible for God to have created the universe. Also, another conceivable problem is that this could be applied to a number of things that we do not think exist to prove that they do, in fact, exist (i.e. unicorns, leprechauns, etc.). Ultimately, I don't believe the above argument. Just bringing something into the realm of debate. All ontological arguments (or even logical arguments) that attempt to prove or disprove God are incomplete. God cannot be proven or disproven. You should know this, son. Either you let reason guide you and you believe that he does not exist or you let the passions guide you and you believe that he does exist. One is right, but it is impossible to know which. Any statement, conclusively, that God exists or does not exist is based on something incomplete somewhere in its line of logic.

So what kind of argument ARE you looking for, son? Since only a logical argument would convince you, and it is impossible to make a logical argument that either proves or disproves God, can you be convinced that God exists? Probably not, right?

5/3/2010 5:19:46 PM

YES, VIRGINIA THERE IS A SANTA CLAUS

5/3/2010 5:20:48 PM

Quote :

"Also, SaabTurbo proves how atheists can be just as pushy about their beliefs as fundamental Christians ITT and thus shows how religious affiliation has no correlation to the kindness or worth of individuals. ITT."

5/3/2010 5:36:50 PM

If I were to suggest that between the Earth and Mars there is a china teapot revolving about the sun in an elliptical orbit, nobody would be able to disprove my assertion provided I were careful to add that the teapot is too small to be revealed even by our most powerful telescopes. But if I were to go on to say that, since my assertion cannot be disproved, it is an intolerable presumption on the part of human reason to doubt it, I should rightly be thought to be talking nonsense. If, however, the existence of such a teapot were affirmed in ancient books, taught as the sacred truth every Sunday, and instilled into the minds of children at school, hesitation to believe in its existence would become a mark of eccentricity and entitle the doubter to the attentions of the psychiatrist in an enlightened age or of the Inquisitor in an earlier time.

5/3/2010 5:53:15 PM

someone got the ball rolling and then moved onto something more exciting.

5/3/2010 5:55:56 PM

I'm glad to see this at the top son.

^^ Fucking THANK YOU.

The list is growing.


TAKING ALL ARGUMENTS


(So far they've been the worst ones I know of, "DUR YOU CAN'T DISPROVE IT CAN YAH?" I'm not claiming to be able to son. Can't disprove a unicorn, his teapot, that we're all brains in a vat or anything else that the mind can make up. The point is that the individual asserting knowledge of the existence of something unseen, unknown, etc has got to demonstrate that it's there. This ridiculous shifting of the burden of proof simply demonstrates that you don't understand what my position is. I will NOT assert that it is "unknowable", because I can't know that the question is unknowable, but I will assert that I do not know for certain that there is no god, in the same way I don't know for certain that his teapot doesn't exist. But the evidence is so incredibly lacking that there is no reason to even consider it a possibility.)

5/3/2010 6:14:11 PM

The analogy between God and the teapot (or any other inconsequential items that are often used in analogies such as that one) is erroneous. Clearly, determining whether or not a supreme being exists is much more important to any rational person than determining whether or not a china teapot in space exists.

If you were to tell me that such a teapot existed, I would not care either way whether it did or not, and thus, would not examine it. If I am told that there may exist a supreme being, though, who may or may not have created the world out of nothing and may or may not decide what happens to me after death, I will more carefully examine the possibility of this supreme being than the possibility of your teapot. The disanalogy is in the level of importance of the two things in question.

Also, you talked about God being "taught as the sacred truth every Sunday." God is not synonymous with Christianity--all religions believe that God(s) exist, but not JUST religions believe that God exists. A nonreligioius theist is possible. Just saying.

EDIT: Another problem with your analogy that I just noticed:

Quote :

"But if I were to go on to say that, since my assertion cannot be disproved, it is an intolerable presumption on the part of human reason to doubt it"

This is even disanalagous with religion. Most religious people do not deny that doubt is important. Presenting outright denial as fact, though, is another story.

[Edited on May 3, 2010 at 6:19 PM. Reason : .]

5/3/2010 6:15:39 PM

The supposed importance of the question does NOT make it more or less reasonable to assert its existence, dummy. That is the WORST attempt at shooting that shit down that I've ever seen. Nice try son.

He's likely aware of the fact that there's more than one religion you fool, but in a country where over 70% of the population IS christian, it's a very valid point.

(That last sentence is a game of semantics. If you understood the point you'd get that the statement has a good bit of sarcasm infused within it. It also demonstrates a complete lack of understanding of that man's position. You'll be hard pressed to find a true gnostic atheist.)

5/3/2010 6:20:47 PM

yea i am not a fan of the whole doubt argument. "well that is why it is called faith"

"you can't see the wind but you know it is real"

give me a break

vomit

barf

gross

5/3/2010 6:22:26 PM

I believe in God but not religion. Suck on that, Saab.

5/3/2010 6:23:01 PM

Quote :

"ALSO, PLEASE PRESENT THE BEST ARGUMENT YOU HAVE FOR YOUR BULLSHIT BELIEFS. THIS IS CRITICAL."

5/3/2010 6:24:16 PM

I, too, believe in God but not religion. Suck on that, Saab.

5/3/2010 6:24:22 PM

is that like deism?

i'm kinda down with deists. i still don't believe in god but i think if i did i'd be a deist.

5/3/2010 6:25:28 PM

Quote :

"is that like deism? i'm kinda down with deists. i still don't believe in god but i think if i did i'd be a deist."

Not necessarily. Deism also tends to include the belief that the god doesn't actually meddle in our affairs. That the god might even be dead now.



^^

Quote :

"ALSO, PLEASE PRESENT THE BEST ARGUMENT YOU HAVE FOR YOUR BULLSHIT BELIEFS. THIS IS CRITICAL."

(Not sure how that's supposed to be some kind of trump card. I could care less whether or not you "believe in" religion.)


^ Oh and btw, this is where that lecture comes in son. The difference in meaning between "Believe in" vs. "believe that" in modern language, etc. "Believe in" is used when justification is not being presented. It is used in place of a longer "believe that" statement and generally "believe in" statements are thought of as "untouchable" by many in our culture. If you get down to it, their claim that they don't "believe in religion" doesn't literally mean they don't believe it exists. It is a much more complex "believe that" statement (Which they don't feel like justifying or explaining, clearly, since they used "believe in").

Quote :

"Either you let reason guide you and you believe that he does not exist or you let the passions guide you and you believe that he does exist. One is right, but it is impossible to know which. Any statement, conclusively, that God exists or does not exist is based on something incomplete somewhere in its line of logic. So what kind of argument ARE you looking for, son? Since only a logical argument would convince you, and it is impossible to make a logical argument that either proves or disproves God, can you be convinced that God exists? Probably not, right?"

Btw, I like this. You concede that you have no reasoning to support its existence but somehow "passion" is an acceptable reason for deciding? This is why I'm trying to grasp your lack of comprehension of the teapot argument or the comparison with fairies, unicorns, monsters, etc. If you say that anything which cannot be dis-proven must be taken that seriously then you must also take EVERY random assertion someone makes seriously. The problem with this mentality is that you get stuck believing EVERYTHING. You claim that things which aren't as important to you are somehow "dismissible", while things you find important aren't. This is not an acceptable way to determine the truth value of claims. It doesn't matter how emotionally important the truth value of the claim is to you. If someone makes a claim for which they have no evidence, the claim is worthless, no matter how "important" it may seem.

I've yet to see anything incomplete in my assertion that positing a claim that something exists with no supporting evidence is completely worthless.

5/3/2010 6:26:48 PM

Quote :

"yea i am not a fan of the whole doubt argument. "well that is why it is called faith" "you can't see the wind but you know it is real" give me a break vomit barf gross"

Who in this thread made that argument?

Also, SaabTurbo: I don't want to debate with you. You will never have a productive debate calling those you disagree with names. I have yet to even state whether or not I believe that a God exists; I was simply making the argument. I will say, however, that I believe that we owe one another kindness. And if you're willfully not show me kindness, I don't want to talk to you.

Also, you did not even present an argument. You just called me a dummy and a fool and said I was wrong. For all your chest-beating, I've yet to see you make one valid point on the existence or nonexistence of God.

[Edited on May 3, 2010 at 6:50 PM. Reason : .]

5/3/2010 6:44:53 PM

I told you, this isn't about me, this is about YOU. You claim to believe it exists, so I'm asking you for reasonable arguments for the existence of this skyson and you came up with a pathetic argument that attempted to invalidate the teapot analogy (Which I did address in the post directly above you and the one before that).

I'm still waiting for a decent argument, as you've yet to actually put forth an argument. As I said before, I'm waiting son. You try to back out of it by saying that it's emotional vs. rational, which is NOT the assertion being made by most skydaddy lovers. If you're willing to concede (Which you already have) that your argument is based on nothing more than wishful thinking and emotional pleading then I'm cool with that. But just state it outright and move on fool.

I never said I could disprove the existence of it. I don't have to son.

5/3/2010 6:48:47 PM

Saying something is wrong is not addressing it. You did not explain why I was wrong.

Quote :

"based on nothing more than wishful thinking and emotional pleading then I'm cool with that"

I didn't say that. I haven't even stated whether or not I believe in a God. I said that, since God can not be proven with any logical or ontological argument, something other than logic must be applied to believe in a God.

[Edited on May 3, 2010 at 7:01 PM. Reason : .]

5/3/2010 6:57:46 PM

You've got to be more specific with this shit fool. Post a statement I made and explain what you need clarification on. I'll most likely provide you with links to outside arguments though, because I'm not going to clutter the thread for YOU to present arguments in with arguments debunking your failures.

(Note that you've already conceded that no reasoning went into your "argument". What else do I need to assert here? You made an argument from emotion and, as I said, if you're cool with that then so am I. So, your "arguments" are done unless you have more or you have a specific question fool.)


OH, OH. So, you didn't actually read the original post son. I'm sorry about that, dumbass. If you don't actually buy any of the shit you're spewing, then fuck off dummy.

5/3/2010 6:59:22 PM

^^^ no one

that is why i didn't say anyone did. i was just thinking about it reading the thread.

5/3/2010 7:00:31 PM

^Oh, sorry.

^^I don't feel like talking to you anymore. That's the end of it. If I did have interesting arguments to present to you, you'll never hear them. Because you act like a dick.

[Edited on May 3, 2010 at 7:03 PM. Reason : .]

5/3/2010 7:02:27 PM

Ya brought your best shit and it failed, don't act like you had something better in your stockpile of emotional pleading.

Bye bitch.

5/3/2010 7:06:51 PM

He's not really being insulting to anyone, dilly, beyond the whole "sky-daddy" business.

I'm not sure if you've ever seen Saab's other posts, but he always uses the mildly-condescending "son" and occasionally "fool". He's not reserving it for you, so don't think you're that special.

Besides that, you seem to not realize that something can be entirely condescending without actually being hostile in any way.

5/3/2010 7:08:02 PM

I like the ontological argument and the Trey Parker argument: "Basically ... out of all the ridiculous religion stories which are greatly, wonderfully ridiculous — the silliest one I've ever heard is, 'Yeah ... there's this big giant universe and it's expanding, it's all gonna collapse on itself and we're all just here just 'cause ... just 'cause'. That, to me, is the most ridiculous explanation ever."

5/3/2010 7:10:57 PM

Quote :

"it's all gonna collapse on itself and we're all just here just 'cause ... just 'cause'. "

I've never heard this "just 'cause" argument. Please, enlighten me.

Also, the ontological argument is piss poor. It is easily shot down.

5/3/2010 7:17:11 PM

^^^He was ruthless in his childish name-calling. There WAS hostility in it.

5/3/2010 7:26:50 PM